Well, once again, our government demonstrates how half-hearted it really is when it comes to fighting Islamism. If they can't even let the air marshals blend in and keep them from being an easy target, then how do we expect them to do the serious, responsible and effective things like closing the borders, shutting down Wahabbi (sp?) mosques and training the American people to be an effective part of the war? (instead of having us "go shopping and live normally.")

If they have TV in hell, Hitler must be thinking he was born 60 years too early -- can you imagine fighting WW2 the way the war on Islam is being fought? The politicians can't even name the enemy for who they really are.

Posted by: Anduril at July 18, 2004 8:28 AM

The Air Marshall Service seems to be hampered in the same was as the Border Patrol. They want to do their jobs, but some unknown entity holds them back. It as if the War on Terror is a rhetorical exercise and not a real effort. Few in America dress the way that the air marshals are required to dress even when not traveling. Obviously someone wants them to fail.

Posted by: epg at July 18, 2004 11:20 AM

If this wasn´t real I would think it was a bad joke.

Posted by: wodan82 at July 18, 2004 11:28 AM

hello

slightly ot ,
i called a radio station saturday morning ,the topic 'are we safe in the skies ",,
i discussed the air marshalls ,and the story of the 14 "muslim musicians" doing a dry run on our planes ,,and i promoted jihadwatch . com over the airwaves , so more people can see ,,how our western media is biased,
just trying to help America wake up ,it is amazing to me how many people i speak with ,,know so little about what we are up against, not that i am smart ,but this site helps in my knowledge

thanks mark;

Posted by: mark7762 at July 18, 2004 11:41 AM

air marshals must "present a professional image" and "blend unnoticed into their environment."

Why do the marshals need to present a "professional" image? If that is the concern of the Marshal Service management then they need to hire, at taxpayers' expense of course, some image consultants from Hollywood. Wouldn't want to scuff those Armani shoes or break a nail in the brawl with armed hijackers at the cockpit door at 39,000 feet now would we?

This is one of the reasons I strongly support the arming of cockpit crews.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at July 18, 2004 12:07 PM

The Federal Air Marshal Service denies that they have a bad policy:

"However, Dave Adams, a spokesman for the service, said, "There is nothing in the policy that says we have to wear a suit and tie" and "there is nothing in the policy that places our federal air marshals at risk."

Mr. Adams said that the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association "is misrepresenting our dress code policy." Mr. Adams said a dress code was put in place in April 2002 after the airline industry complained that air marshals' attire was too casual. [...]
"In order to gain respect in a situation, you must be attired to gain respect," Mr. Adams said in an interview."

Since most people traveling by air wear casual clothes he just confirmed that air marshals will not be able to blend in among the rest of the passengers.

The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association complained in april by sending a letter to members of Congress.

I would have expected that the policy would have been changed immediately after someone with half a brain saw it.

The only bright side of this would be if it is some kind of deception strategy to make terrorists careless...

Posted by: Curious Citizen from Sweden at July 18, 2004 1:20 PM

Not sure how accurate this article is. The article posted here "Terror is the Skies" mentioned that there were several air marshalls on the flight with the suspicious ME men. It doesn't appear anyone was able to pick those marshalls out.I've also read stories about passengers demanding to know who the air marshalls on a given flight are.If marshalls were really easy to spot it seems passengers would have no trouble identifying them.

Posted by: Roxane at July 18, 2004 1:23 PM

The article is titled "Terror in the Skies"

Posted by: Roxane at July 18, 2004 1:24 PM

Mr. Adams said a dress code was put in place in April 2002 after the airline industry complained that air marshals' attire was too casual.

F#@% the "airline industry". If the airline industry had done its job of securing its airplanes in the first place per 14 CFR 108, 9/11 would not have happened. For more than 20 years it has not been possible for terrorists to even approach a cockpit door in flight on El Al.

Too many managers in the airline industry and in the federal agencies responsible for this security have been watching way too many movies. This is a real shooting war and people are dying in large numbers. It's time to wake up and smell the couscous.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at July 18, 2004 2:09 PM

Certainly seems absurd. Unless govt. is trying to deter acts of terrorism by smart suits and a haircut...

Posted by: Morgane at July 18, 2004 2:16 PM

Well, let's make them all wear badges in plain site so we can counter any future litigation that the hijackers might bring for being "deceived" by law enfocement.
And let the flight attendant point them out,so as to make the passengers "feel" more comfortable.
And give them rulers so they can slap the hands of misbehaving muslims.

Posted by: westword at July 18, 2004 2:49 PM

Guys:

Off topic, but please check out this hilarious animation:

jibjab.com

Posted by: CGW at July 18, 2004 4:27 PM

The next time I have to fly, perhaps I wear a suit and tie. Scare off the terrorists, you know.

Posted by: Gary and the Samoyeds at July 18, 2004 4:46 PM

Better yet let them have a beard...go all the way....imagine the terrorists surprise when a dark man with full beard wearing his PJ's and mr. coffee filter hat jumps up and rams a gun into his throat...LOL...that would REALLY confuse them...even better...a woman marshall wearing a burka.

Posted by: USAgirl at July 18, 2004 5:20 PM

It is said about the marshals. But this type of half effort has plagued our western societies for a long time. The following are true, sad facts: The Clinton administration spent more money to combat the illegal importation of larger toilets (sorry not sure of the size difference) from Canada, and prosecute the people who supposedly “broke the Yugoslavia embargo” (i.e. Bobby Fisher), than it spent on fighting terror. Even though during his administration, MORE Americans were killed by terror than the previous 20 years.

Posted by: oikonomakis at July 18, 2004 5:41 PM

U.S.A Girl is spot on. All the marshals should wear burkas -THE PERFECT COVER!Think how many weapons you could hide under it. Also, fanatical
Terrorists wouldn't try to penetrate their veils,eh...

Posted by: Morgane at July 18, 2004 7:40 PM

Roxane,

There probably were no air marshals on the flight. The stewardess just said that to calm the passengers.

Posted by: Facts of Life at July 18, 2004 8:34 PM

Sadly, facts, you're probably quite right. The more reasonable approach would've been to pass out blunt objects to the non-Moslem passengers and instruct them to congregate around the cockpit area.

Posted by: Anduril at July 18, 2004 8:58 PM

OT, but maybe useful to some of the readers here:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ma20040719.shtml

Reza, take note! We are Arming ourselves for you.

Posted by: Gary at July 19, 2004 12:14 AM

I know that this question is off topic, but I really want to know, do you people know where Reza's colleague Mahmoud been? He has been missing for a while. I really miss his provocative comment.
What happend to him? Does he finally become a good Muslim and cease using Infidel invented technology?

Anyone?

Posted by: herman at July 19, 2004 2:54 AM

Maybe things aren't so good at homeland security because Jihadist sympathizers are working for it, as this story from Frontpage magazine shows;

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14267

Readers of this e-zine may recall a troubling warning issued on these pages last November by David Horowitz and me (an editorial entitled “Why We Are Publishing This Article” that accompanied a long essay entitled “A Troubling Influence”). What made the warning so troubling was not just that its subject -- a political influence operation being mounted during wartime by Islamist organizations against the Bush Administration and U.S. government. Of particular concern was the help it documented that such entities have received from a prominent and well-connected conservative activist, Grover Norquist.

It now appears that Mr. Norquist’s help has extended beyond facilitating high-level access and influence for various Muslim-American and Arab-American entities with troubling ties to, or at least sympathy for, radical Islamofascists – and even terrorists. Reportedly, his association also helped someone affiliated with such a group to gain a political appointment to an exceedingly sensitive post: “policy director” of the Department of Homeland Security’s Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection division.

As the title of this position suggests, its occupant would have access to highly sensitive information about the vulnerability of, among other things, U.S. ports, transportation infrastructure, chemical plants, oil refineries and nuclear power plants to terrorist attack. The incumbent is a 32-year-old lawyer named Faisal Gill.

It is unclear what qualified Mr. Gill for such a post. In response to press inquiries, a DHS spokeswoman declined to describe his qualifications or background so it is not known whether he has any prior experience with intelligence or, for that matter, with security policy.

What is known is that Gill’s political patrons include Grover Norquist, who was listed by Gill as a reference on employment documents. After all, Gill had been a spokesman for the Taxpayers Alliance of Prince William County, Virginia, which is affiliated with Norquist’s group, Americans for Tax Reform. Gill had also worked in 2001 as director of government affairs for the Islamic Free Market Institute (also known as the Islamic Institute), whose founding president was Grover Norquist.

Interestingly, news articles published after September 11 described Gill in another capacity – as a spokesman for the controversial American Muslim Council (AMC). The AMC was founded and controlled by a prominent Islamist activist, Abdurahman Alamoudi. Alamoudi was indicted last October on terrorism-related money laundering charges. While in jail awaiting trial, he has reportedly engaged in plea-bargaining by confessing to participating in a Libyan plot to murder the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.

For some reason, Gill is reported to have failed to list his work with the AMC on his “Standard Form 86” national security questionnaire. This is a potential felony violation of the full and truthful disclosure required by law of all applying for clearances.

According to two recently published articles in Salon.com, the FBI raised concerns last March about Gill’s non-disclosure of his ties to Alamoudi’s AMC. At the time, he was reportedly briefly removed from his position at DHS.

Curiously, however, Gill is said to have been reinstated within days. According to a DHS spokesman, the Department had conducted a "thorough investigation" that found Gill "exceeded all requirements" for his job.

Fortunately, on 23 June, after news reports revealed Gill’s omission, attendant suspension and subsequent reinstatement, the Homeland Security’s Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin, announced that he would be launching an inquiry into how Gill received a security clearance, despite the omission. For some reason, though, the IG’s report is said to require as much as six-months to complete.

Several questions cry out for answers:

Why does an intelligence office require a “policy director”?

Given Gill’s seeming lack of qualifications, how did Gill secure this sensitive position in the first place?

If, as appears to be the case, he did so simply through political connections, did such connections subsequently trump security and legal concerns? Was he permitted to be swiftly reinstated and allowed to this day to have access to very sensitive information – even though he apparently failed to live up to his obligations to disclose a work history that might well have disqualified him?

Will political connections also prevent the Inspector General from performing a rigorous and fullsome review of the Gill Affair?

How on earth could it take as long as six-months to answer these and related questions? If there are, in fact, grounds for believing Gill should not continue to serve in the DHS intelligence organization, it is imprudent in the extreme to have this investigation drag on – especially if he is going to be permitted to remain in place during the interval.

Gven the sensitivity of Faisal Gill’s position and the information to which it has access, this matter must be addressed and resolved at once. A failure truthfully to complete security clearance forms is a serious – and, normally, a disqualifying – offense, particularly if the information withheld is material to decisions about whether the applicant can be cleared.

At the very least, until such time as the Inspector General’s report is completed, it would seem both responsible and consistent with standard operating procedures to suspend without prejudice and with pay the object of the investigation from his position. Who could possibly object to that?

Posted by: Mullah_Abu_Bin_Boobie at July 19, 2004 4:12 AM

Herman,
I always thought that Reza and Mahmoud were actually one and the same. Or is it just that it's nigh on impossible to differenciate between muslims out of control rantings.

Posted by: Rikki at July 19, 2004 6:26 AM

Here we go, guys.

OT, but wanted to toss this out there for KeithJoy before jumping into final wedding prep.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/1745_0_2_0_C/

Teddy Chappaquiddick Kennedy, John F-ing Kerry's god, just made things more difficult... I am hoping at least a majority of Republicans did Not vote for this.

Posted by: Gary at July 19, 2004 6:31 AM

Back to the subject at hand :
The only people who wear Air Marshall style "tuxedos" are lawyers, self important stock brokers,(maybe even a few celebs trying to "blend in") and people due to appear in court , and as I'm sure there are a distinct lack of the latter on board planes in the first place, the list is narrowed down nicely for the trained terrorist eye.Lets get real about this, a group of muslim terrorists planning on hi-jacking a plane in the US,learnt a long time ago that they look ,at the very least, mildly suspicious decked out in full arabic muslim attire. So Air Marshalls should perhaps take a leaf out of their books on that account. You can almost see imagine them doing a scan for air-marshalls with a tick-off list:
Terrorist 1:"Slick hairdo?"
Terrorist 2:"Check!!!"

Terrorist 1:"Matrix style shades?"
Terrorist 2:"Check!!!

Terrorist 1:"Sicilian Mafia suit?"
Terrorist 2:"Check!!!"

Oh!!! You get it ...... etc...etc...

Posted by: Rikki at July 19, 2004 6:40 AM

Gary,
Where is Keithjoy hanging these days ? Long time no see.

Posted by: Rikki at July 19, 2004 6:48 AM

I'm not sure, Rikki. I was noticing lately that, like Reza, he falls silent in a hurry when facts are presented to destroy his arguments (such as that '3 month supply' bit he tried on ANWAR (try 9 years at maximum output, and 10% of our daily needs, KJ)). So I had to wonder if he was just a DemUnderground foil...

I myself am soon jumping into last-minute jobs before my wedding this weekend. Going to miss reading here for almost 3 weeks...

Posted by: Gary at July 19, 2004 6:52 AM

USAgirl,
You may be joking about the Air Marshalls wearing bhurkas, but it's something I've been discussing amongst friends for a long time. Not just air Marshalls but undercover FBI, CIA and MI5 agents too. Their are enough hispanic immigrants in the US being paid peanuts for jobs not fit to be given to prisoners on a chain gang. Why not give them a proper job, train them up to learn everything there is to know about islam and send them undercover into terrorist heartlands. It's obvious we can't trust muslims to work for our governments against other muslims so give the job to hispanics who I think could easily be confused as darker skinned muslims such as pakistanis.

Posted by: Rikki at July 19, 2004 6:58 AM

Congratulations Gary I hope you have a great wedding, and a happy marriage. ( I'm engaged myself ....gulp!!!). I think you're right about KJ and I also thought the same thing about Reza at one point but now I think he's not so much a FAKE as just a FREAK (ie- a typical crazy muslim).But they do have the same habit of shutting up when they're proven wrong.

PS- Stay away from Iraq, on your honey moon, I heard it's a bit dusty....and too hot.

Posted by: Rikki at July 19, 2004 7:07 AM

interesting enough but hardly surprising when it comes to governmental decision making. this is similar to the idiocy of the FBI trying to recruit muslims....remember that idiot muslim FBI agent who refused to wear a wire into a mosque because muslims don't record other muslims, and he got a promotion? unreal.

as i understand it, from wandering around the net, israel has tons of arabic speaking people available but we've refused their services...i'd rather take the risk of hiring somebody with dual loyalties than hiring one from the USA (read muslim) who has zero loyalty to America. sick and getting sicker folks.

we're gonna get hammered hard and alot of decent, innocent people are going to die because of PC morons....if only i was in charge the world would be a better place!

Posted by: drisnya at July 19, 2004 11:42 AM

Has anybody asked what religious affiliation the person in Homeland Security who came up with this 'closet identification' ruling for US Air Marshalls is? It wouldn't be muslim perchance? Would it?

Oooops.. Forgot that asking those kinds of questions will get you fired. Sorry..

Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal at July 19, 2004 1:26 PM